Woman in Gold (4/10): A dull take on an interesting subject matter.

“If life is a race, you beat me to the finish. But if life is a boxing match, I'm the last one standing.”

Based on true events, Woman in Gold is one of those films that ended up being far less interesting than the actual story it was trying to tell. If The Monuments Men failed to appeal to a wide audience I wonder what the producers of this film were thinking. It too centers on stolen artwork during the Second World War, but it takes us through the litigation process that Maria Altmann went through to try to regain what rightfully belonged to her family. At least The Monuments Men focused on a group of men trying to save famous artwork from being destroyed with a touch of comedy, but Woman in Gold is more of a dragged out drama with forced sentimentality. The general premise might be similar to that film, but in a way it also can be compared to Philomena considering the lead characters are played by an unlikely duo. In The Woman in Gold the pairing is between Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds. Reynolds is Randy Schoenberg, a young attorney who gets involved with a case that Maria Altmann (Mirren) presents him with. She’s a Jewish refugee with a wealthy Austrian background. When the Nazis occupied Austria she had to watch how all these valuable art pieces were taken away from her family by these soldiers. Among them was one of Gustav Klimt’s famous paintings, a portrait of her aunt known as Woman in Gold. Now almost have a century later she asks Randy to represent her and help her get the painting back which is held at an Austrian Museum. When Randy discovers the painting is worth more than one hundred million dollars, he doesn’t hesitate to help her and so their unlikely relationship takes off as does their difficult task. 

The chemistry between Reynolds and Mirren is solid, but I wouldn’t say it comes close to being as charming as Coogan and Dench were in Philomena. The pacing in this film was tedious and I found most of the dramatic moments manipulative and overly sentimental. As good as an actress Mirren is, she wasn’t given strong material to work with. She makes some witty and sassy remarks during a couple of confrontation scenes with some of the Austrian diplomats, but that is about it. Reynolds gets the look and the style of the 90’s spot on, but there wasn’t much to his character. I felt like this film worked basically as a timeline where we are introduced to important events, but we never really got to know these characters or how they related with one another. Fortunately the timeline wasn’t told in chronological order, we get several flashbacks to when Maria was a child and to when she was a young woman fleeing from the Nazi officials, so at least we get some parallel action scenes. I’d say that those flashbacks were the most entertaining part of the movie. Tatiana Maslany played the young Maria Altmann and she delivers the best performance in the film. There is a great scene where she and her husband are fleeing from the officials, but that was one of the only few scenes where I felt engaged with the film. The story is a fascinating one, but one that I would’ve been better off reading about considering the film only seemed interested in telling the story rather than letting us get to know the characters. 

Despite having a talented supporting cast, the screenplay by Alexi Kaye Campbell fails to give these characters any life. Take Katie Holmes for instance, who plays Randy’s wife. She is given nothing to do except play the role of the wife without any dimension whatsoever to her character. The film fails to explore these dynamics between the characters because it’s only interested in presenting the facts. Daniel Bruhl is also underused as he only seems to be in the film to remind Randy and Maria what a difficult task they are going to have despite the help he provides for them. The same can be said about the rest of the supporting cast including Max Irons, Charles Dance, and Jonathan Pryce. The film tries so hard to be about something important (mostly about being able to reconcile with the past) but Simon Curtis’s film is unfortunately so dull that it fails to do so. It doesn’t bring anything new to the familiar David versus Goliath tale and despite taking so much time to remind us what a difficult task this is going to be, the resolution seemed way too simple at the end. There are far better films that tackle the subject matter in a less manipulative way.      

My Review: RED 2 (5/10)

"If there's one thing I know, it's women and covert operations."

If there's one thing I know, it's that if the first film wasn't good, the sequel probably won't be either. That was the case with RED 2 which follows pretty much the same generic formula that it did in the first RED with the new additions of Catherine Zeta Jones, Anthony Hopkins, and Byung-hun Lee. The film has its funny moments, not thanks to screenwriters Jon and Erich Hoeber (responsible for the terrible screenplays of Whiteout and Battleship), but to its incredible and highly likable cast. Their presence alone and their interactions together elevate this otherwise ridiculous film. I guess that the producers decided to make a sequel considering the world wide success the first film had (despite not being a fan) and this time they brought Dean Parisot (Galaxy Quest and Fun with Dick and Jane) to take over the director's chair that Robert Schwentke (RIPD and Flightplan) had left unoccupied. This sequel takes the same formula and similar situations by mixing comedy with over the top action sequences. There is nothing sophisticated or fresh about this film, so don't go into this expecting an engaging and thoughtful trailer. 

The plot follows the events from the previous film as Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is trying to enjoy his retired life now with the company of his girlfriend Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), but the relationship is being affected by his overprotective behavior. She is yearning for some action in her life, so when Marvin (John Malkovich) shows up to warn Frank that there are people following them she doesn't hesitate in wanting to come along. But Frank dismisses Marvin and claims he is overreacting and that he and Sarah should continue to go on with their normal lives. It turns out that Marvin was right, as a Pentagon operative named Jack Horton (Neal McDonough) tries to capture Frank and threatens to torture Sarah unless he gives him some important information. Marvin comes to the rescue and explains that they are being hunted due to their previous involvement in a Cold War undercover operation known as Nightshade involving some sort of nuclear weapon. In order to find out more information and discover the reason as to why these men are hunting them down Frank, Sarah, and Marvin travel to Paris and meet up with Russian agent Katya (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who also happens to share a past relationship with Frank. Former MI6 agent, Victoria (Helen Mirren), is hired to kill Frank as well, but being a friend of theirs she gives them the heads up. It seems these former agents have been forced to come out of retirement once again to settle things once and for all.

If you thought the first film was silly, then you will think RED 2 is even more ridiculous considering the over the top action scenes involving car chases and gunshots. The plot is really dumb and light, and the only fun you might get out of this film comes from the cast. I actually liked Anthony Hopkins and Byung-hun Lee in their particular roles here, but they just couldn't do much with the material. Hellen Mirren is such a talented actress that at moments it felt embarrassing to hear her speak out her recycled lines. The cast did seem to have a lot of fun with the lightness of it all and John Malkovich delivers several funny lines, but I just felt this film was dull, stale, and unsatisfying. To be honest I came into this film remembering very little about the first film, and I can imagine I will completely forget about this sequel as well in a few more weeks because it is beyond silly. Silly can be good at times, but here I think they went a little too far with it. I will give this two and a half stars for the cast involved because they are just fun to watch at times. 

My Review: Monsters University (6/10)

"You don't study scaring, you just do it."

I wasn't a huge fan of the original animated film, but I still enjoyed it enough to want to go check out this prequel, Monsters University. I have to admit that Pixar rarely makes a bad film (with the exception of Cars 2) so obviously expectations are always really high for these kind of films. I wasn't blown away by their latest effort, Brave, and I kind of felt the same way about Monsters University. It was a charming film with some funny moments and some heart, but it wasn't up to par with Pixar's greatest films. It had a pretty simple message for kids: fight for your dreams and even if you don't accomplish them you will still find what you are good at along the way and everything will work out. Billy Crystal and John Goodman do some great voice work once again here for their memorable characters, Sullivan and Mike. The animation was also excellent, and Pixar is probably the best at this department with some great art work. I had a fun time at the theaters, but wasn't blown away this time and felt a bit disappointed. It was very formulaic and the character development was pretty weak for a Pixar film, but I still laughed during several scenes so I still have to give this film a passing grade.

The story works as a sequel as it focuses on Mike's (Billy Crystal) early years. In a school visit to Monsters Inc. Mike discovers he wants to become a scarer and so the film jumps in time to when he enrolls at Monsters University and begins to major as a scarer. Here he meets Sully (John Goodman) who he really dislikes. They seem to always be competing with each other until a series of unfortunate events makes the pair team up with each other to overcome their odds. Mike and Sully cause a disturbance and Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren) expels them from the program. This forces Mike and Sully to team together for the school's scare games once the Dean acknowledges the possibility of them reentering the program if they win. The problem is that they have some fierce competition and they have to team up with the sorority group of Oozma Kappa, a bunch of outcasts who have no experience at being scarers. Thus the film turns into a classic underdog competition (Revenge of the nerds style). Randy (Steve Buscemi) is also in this prequel, who surprisingly was Mike's friendly roommate. Something happens during the film which will make him turn into the classic villain we saw in Monster Inc.

The film is pretty formulaic, but I found it entertaining to see how the friendship between Mike and Sully began after being suche fierce rivals. I also was surprised to discover Randy wasn't your typical villain, he was friendly once and something happens to him that causes him to change his behavior. Overall this is probably one of Pixar's weakest efforts, but it is still a charming fun film and one kids will enjoy. These are all likable characters and the only person who he really miss from Monsters Inc. is the lovable Boo. Despite not being a great film, I still would recommend it for kids, and I think adults will have a lot of fun if they don't go see it with high expectations.

My Review: Hitchcock (7/10)

¨That, my dear, is why they call me the Master of Suspense¨

Biographical films can be tricky because you can enjoy the movie based solely on your love or passion for the person which the film is based on. I knew it was going to be hard for me not to like Hitchcock because I am a huge fan of his work and love to hear every small detail about his life. Hitchcock was one of the most influential filmmakers in the history of cinema, and Psycho is considered to be one of the best horror films of all time so I was excited about this project. I really enjoyed this movie, but I can´t say if someone who isn’t a fan of Hitchcock´s work might enjoy this film or not. Hitchcock was directed by Sacha Gervasi, who also happened to direct one of my favorite documentaries: Anvil: The Story of Anvil; and the screenplay was adapted from Stephen Rebello´s book ¨Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho.¨ You can´t possibly go wrong with a movie dealing with such an influential director on the making of one of his masterpieces. It is part of the Hollywood history, and everyone who enjoys films will probably appreciate this work for at least trying to give us a glimpse of Hitchcock´s mind. The film might not be as deep as other recent biographical films, but it is a pleasant experience. The major complain most people had is that it didn’t spend as much time on the set of Psycho as it did dealing with his relationship with his wife, Alma. We would have all enjoyed this film a little more if more emphasis was placed on the making of Psycho rather on his disputes with his wife. What I did love about this film is how they focused on the huge risk that Hitchcock was taking by making this movie on his own despite being a well known figure. He decided to step out of his comfort zone and try something new. You are never too old to take risks and follow your heart and that is exactly what Hitchcock did when he decided to make Psycho.

If you can learn one thing from Hitchcock´s life is that the phrase ¨behind every great man there is a great woman¨ is completely true for Alfred and Alma. The story centers on the period of Hitchcock´s (Anthony Hopkins) life when he was coming up with the idea of filming Psycho. It was 1959 and he had recently had success with North by Northwest, but some questions about whether or not he was ready to retire began to creep in his mind. It was time to try something different and when he got his hands around a novel titled Psycho, he knew it would be his following picture. This horror novel seemed impossible to adapt at the time considering all the tight regulations being placed, but Hitchcock took this as his next challenge. Paramount isn’t happy about this risky move so Alfred decides to finance the film on his own with the support of his wife Alma (Helen Mirren). Alma on the other hand begins to collaborate with a friend named Whitfield (Danny Huston) on a screenplay that Alfred has decided to overlook at the moment. Alfred was known for his controlling habits over his lead lady´s and productions, and this being a film financed by him made the tension even worse. He decides to hire Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson) for the leading role after Alma´s recommendation and Anthony Perkins (James D´Arcy) to play the psychotic Norman Bates. His former lead lady, Vera Miles (Jessica Biel), was set to play the secondary role. Thus the challenge began for Alfred as he had to manage his personal life with his professional one.

I found it funny how in a couple scenes they brought up the failure of Vertigo, which is now considered to be Hitchcock´s masterpiece. Criticism for that movie wasn’t well received, which shows us how ahead of his time Hitchcock really was. He could have continued to listen to the big production companies and made the same films over and over again, but he decided to face and challenge them bringing something unique and new to the table. This serves as a modern criticism towards Hollywood which continues to make the same films over again without wanting to take any risks. If it weren’t for people like Hitchcock who stood up to these corporate giants we wouldn’t have had films like Psycho. There are some directors today who have been influenced by Alfred and continue to take risks, but for the most part most continue to bend over to the big Hollywood producers. Hitchcock, the movie, doesn’t seem to take any big risks and plays it safe with this biography, but it works thanks to some strong performances from Hopkins and Mirren. Scarlett Johansson, James D´Arcy, and Jessica Biel all share unique resemblance to the original actors. Credit has to be given to the makeup and hairstyling artists who rightfully earned the only Oscar nomination this film received. This was a pleasant experience although the superficial biopic wasn’t groundbreaking; the story was still worth it.

  

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: RED (5/10)

¨He got old. Then some thumb-sucker came along and tagged him RED: Retired, Extremely Dangerous.¨

Robert Schwentke (The Time Traveler`s Wife, and Flightplan) had the privilege of directing a talented cast including Bruce Willis, Mary-Louise Parker, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich, Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox, Karl Urban, and Richard Dreyfuss. A lot of big names for the latest adaptation of the DC Comic graphic novel written by Warren Ellis and Cully Hamner. One would expect nothing could go wrong with a movie with such great star power, but I was disappointed with this lightly entertaining comedy slash action flick. Red suffers from a poorly adapted screenplay written by Jon and Erich Hoeber (the guys who brought us one of the worst films of 2009: Whiteout). The plot is really bad, and the actors do the best they can in order to save the film. There are some funny moments (but far too few) thanks to the talent from the entire cast that save the movie from falling into horrible territory. John Malkovich gives a very comedic and surprising performance, but unfortunately he doesn`t get enough screen time to save the movie. The rest of the cast give good performances, but they are far from memorable. The chemistry between Bruce Willis and Mary-Louise Parker (Weeds) is pretty decent, although nothing we haven’t seen before. I really expected this movie would have a lot more funnier moments, but the screenplay failed to help out the great cast. Red could have been much better if the producers would have taken more time in finding better screenwriters. I just felt this movie was like an All-Star team without a good coach to help them win the championship. With a better plot, Red would have been a great and memorable movie.

Bruce Willis is Frank Moses, a former CIA agent who is now retired and having a difficult time making the transition. The only thing that seems to keep him going is when he gets to speak over the phone with his government pension representative, Sarah Ross (Mary-Louise Parker). Her life doesn`t seem all that exciting either, and she spends her days working and reading sexy spy novels. Sarah and Frank spend a lot of time on the phone discussing their boring and lonely lives without having ever met, but they seem to enjoy each other. Their daily routines will change all of a sudden when someone puts a hit on Frank and tries killing him. Frank might be old, but he`s still got game. He manages to elude the dozen of assassins that are sent to his home and decides to give Sarah a visit in Kansas City guessing she might be in danger as well. Frank will need some help in order to discover who is after him so he decides to get his old CIA team back together: Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich), Victoria (Helen Mirren), and Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman). They are all more than happy to get back in action since they all seem to have difficulties adapting to their retiree lives. Together they begin delving into the past in search for clues, while at the same time they have to face the young CIA agent who is after them: William Cooper (Karl Urban). Richard Dreyfuss, Brian Cox, and Julian McMahon also have smaller roles in the film.

I really wished this movie would have been funnier considering the talented cast. Malkovich is by far the funniest one in the film; I`ve seen Willis in better roles; Freeman doesn’t add anything to the story; Urban being one of the younger actors proved he has what it takes to stand next to these A-list actors; Louise-Parker was pretty funny in this movie, but she is way better in Weeds; and Helen Mirren always brings her A game to the table. I didn`t have a problem with the performances, but I just wished they would have done a better job with the plot and the screenplay. This is one of those movies that looks hilarious in the trailers, but then you discover it isn`t actually that funny when sitting through the 100 minute film. Red is not terrible. I actually had a decent time watching it, but it is just light entertainment I wouldn`t consider recommending it or watching it over again. The movie did give me a nostalgic feeling seeing how so many of these actors are actually close to their retirement, but they still have the talent if given the right script to work with. I am a huge Bruce Willis fan, but I have to admit John Malkovich stole each scene he was in. Richard Dreyfuss and Brian Cox both have small parts in this movie, but they are really funny in it as well. Seeing these brilliant actors working together is the highlight of the film, but they should have brought in some talented screenwriters as well.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: The Queen (8/10)

¨That's the way we do things in this country, quietly, with dignity. That's what the rest of the world has always admired us for. ¨

The Queen will mostly be remembered for Helen Mirren`s Oscar winning performance as Queen Elizabeth II which was just remarkable. She absolutely nailed the role of this widely known public figure and really captured her essence. Her physical resemblance with the Queen helped, but her mannerism and expressions were also outstanding. The only disappointing thing about her performance is that it overshadowed some other important elements the movie had. First of all Stephen Frears (High Fidelity, Dirty Pretty Things, The Grifters) did a great job with the direction which gave him his second nomination for best director, Michael Sheen was also excellent in his portrayal of Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the most important element of all that has been overshadowed by Mirren`s performance was the screenplay that was beautifully written by Peter Morgan (The Damned United, Frost/Nixon, and The Last King of Scotland). Morgan wrote a very believable story about what happened inside the Queen`s summer residence during the week of Princess Diana`s death. The scenes felt very real and sincere and there were also several funny and clever lines as well. Morgan never takes any sides on the issue and gives a fair portrayal of what might actually have occurred on those days before Diana`s funeral took place. I think he deserved a lot more credit then he actually got because he really did a great job researching for the story and made the film look more like a documentary than an actual fictional one. Helen Mirren`s spectacular performance however makes it easy for us to overlook those elements.

The film begins with Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) winning the elections by a landslide and becoming Britain`s youngest Prime Minister of the century. Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) is watching the news on TV while she is getting her portrait drawn by an artist and regrets not being able to vote.  The Queen isn`t very excited about the new young Prime Minister, but they meet in Buckingham Palace and she makes the title official. The movie then jumps forward three months later when Diana suffers an accident in Paris. Real news footage is used for the movie covering the incident and we see how the Royal family receives the news in their summer residence in Balmoral Castle, as well as Tony Blair back in London. Blair`s director of communication, Alastair Campbell (Mark Bazeley), writes a speech for him realizing that her death has had a huge impact in the world and that a live speech honoring her would be necessary. Blair`s popularity rises even more after his great speech in which he calls Diana ¨the people`s princess, ¨ a title that has stuck with her ever since.  The Royal family takes a different approach and decides this is a private matter and that no public speech should be necessary. Queen Elizabeth`s mother (Sylvia Syms) and Prince Phillip (James Cromwell) aren`t very fond of Diana and agree with Elizabeth that she is no longer a member of the Royal family.  Prince Charles (Alex Jennings) on the other hand recognizes that the public will see them as the enemy if they don`t empathize with their loss, so he asks Blair to try to convince her mother to make a public statement. The movie focuses on this dark week for the Royal family in which the tabloids tried to force the Queen to make some sort of statement, while she struggled with coping with her death privately and maintaining the Royal tradition.

The Queen is a very well written drama with some powerful performances and it is perhaps a very realistic portrayal of what went on inside the Royal residence during those days in which no public statement was made. Diana`s death was a very memorable event for those of us who were alive during the time and we all remember where we were when we first heard the news. It remains a very memorable event in our heads and that is why it was so important for the movie to feel real, and Morgan`s script contributed to that along with the performances from Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen. The scene where the Queen encounters the impressive stag was very powerful and serves as a great metaphor in this movie. There are several different views of what the stag actually represents, but I believe it represented royalty and how fragile it has become. The Queen identified with such a magnificent creature and realized that she would have to change her approach in order to survive. Blair was perhaps the only one from his office (even his wife, portrayed really well by Helen McCrory, was against monarchy) who identified with the Queen. The movie may only be remembered in history for Mirren`s excellent portrayal of the Queen, but I think there is much more to it than just that. 

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/